Penalty for murder: death by starvation

Published 7:00 pm, Saturday, March 26, 2005

If a person is convicted of killing his wife and unborn child, they believe that person deserves the death penalty, such as Scott Peterson.

They are opposed by the liberal establishment, who seem to feel that no one should be executed, for any reason.

The list of reasons for sparing the life of criminals is almost endless. Here in Connecticut, they oppose the use of the electric chair as cruel and unusual punishment.

They have claimed the same for lethal injection. In The News-Times was printed a claim by an "expert" in the Michael Ross case that if the injection is not delivered properly, the recipient will feel pain.

Other claims are that you can never be absolutely positive that you have the correct person, and that you may be executing an innocent person.

Another defense that is almost always raised is the mental competency of the criminal. A very subjective yardstick, mental competency can mean different things to different people.

They mostly claim that a criminal has the IQ of a 9- or 6-year-old. What the heck does that mean? We allow him to vote or drive a car, or any other activity and he is competent.

Well, my conservative friends, the solution is at hand, more than half of all the liberals in Congress have agreed that "death by starvation is acceptable." And the person whom they wish to kill is both mentally incompetent and innocent.

So the liberals have finally seen the light. From now on the penalty for murder should be death by starvation. Thank you, Terri Schiavo.